People v. Curtis CA3

Filed 1/22/24 P. v. Curtis CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C098053

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 22FE015523)

v.

RAEMEL CURTIS,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Raemel Curtis appeals a judgment following his conviction by jury of petty theft, second degree robbery, and being a felon in possession of a firearm, and the trial court’s determination that he had suffered a prior strike conviction for which he received an aggregate prison sentence of six years. Defendant’s contention on appeal is that his attorney rendered ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to: (1) bring a motion under People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 to strike his prior strike and (2) request the trial court stay his $300 restitution fine in accordance with People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157. We affirm.

1

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The People’s second amended information charged defendant with felony theft (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (c); count one);1 second degree robbery (§ 211; count two); and being a felon in possession of a firearm (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1); count three). The information further alleged several aggravating sentencing factors (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421)2 and that defendant had suffered a prior strike conviction (§§ 667 subds. (b)- (i), 1170.12) as well as a prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)). At defendant’s jury trial, the People presented evidence that on July 25, 2022, the victim, S.S.,3 drove to Bank of America to deposit money for his son-in-law’s convenience store. S.S. also withdrew $1,100 in change, which he placed in a bag before returning to the store. Upon returning to the store, S.S. parked, got out of his car, and started walking towards the store. As he did, a man came running up behind him and stole the bag with the money. S.S. reported the theft and provided three digits of the license plate number for the black car used by the thief to flee. Police later utilized unique characteristics of the car from the convenience store video footage and the three license plate numbers to identify a matching Mercedes belonging to defendant. Video surveillance from Bank of America showed a black sedan parked at the bank while S.S. was in the bank. After S.S. left, the sedan appeared to follow him. On August 24, 2022, another victim, M.A., was sitting in her parked car in a parking lot outside of a dental office, with the door open talking on her cell phone. A man came up, grabbed the phone, and yanked M.A.’s purse away leaving marks on her arm. The man then fled in a black car. Following the theft, M.A. found three phones